Standing Committee A

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Traffic Management Bill

Clause 17 - Arrangements for network management

Brian White: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in
page 7, line 43, at end insert 
 'subject to guidance from the appropriate national authority.'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 172, in 
page 8, line 1, after 'the', insert 'efficiency and'.
 No. 173, in 
page 8, line 4, at end insert— 
 '(iii) the performance of their Traffic Manager.'.
 No. 99, in 
page 8, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(6A) No arrangements made in pursuance of the duties specified in this section shall take precedence over wider transport and community policy objectives set out in relevant Local Transport Plans and Regional Transport Strategies.'.
 No. 154, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Brian White: A number of the Minister's earlier responses make amendment No. 154, in which I ask the Government to bring forward the guidance on a national basis, superfluous. He has already said that that will happen, although I was curious about why he did not use ''shall'' rather than ''may''. That is an arcane question.
 I have a couple of questions about amendment No. 153. My purpose was to try to tease out of the Minister whether the guidance will ensure that there is consistency about which roads and classes of road will be subject to the permit scheme. I want to know how people who use the different schemes are talking to the network managers, how they will avoid 400 different schemes and 400 different sets of forms and how the people who will negotiate on road closure are not going to have to do one set of negotiations on one side of the boundary and another set on the other. 
 Will the Minister say how the guidance will cover those decisions so that there are no costly disputes. The focus must be on minimising congestion and disruption, rather than on discussions about the negotiations happening in different authorities, which will be costly for, particularly, the utilities, who will discuss that point with the local authorities.

David Wilshire: I shall speak to amendments No. 172 and 173. Amendment No. 172 seeks to make clause 17, at the top of page 8, monitor efficiency as well as effectiveness. It is not just
 a question of doing what the Bill says at any price. There are still some people in this country who believe that throwing money at a problem will improve things. I do not share that view, and perhaps the Minister agrees with me.
 However, we need to have regard to the people who ultimately pay the bill, namely council tax payers, motorists and everybody else. It seems, therefore, that as well as monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme, it is crucial to ask whether we are getting value for money and whether a sensible amount is being paid, because there will always be competing priorities. While the issues are very important, they are not the only issues concerning road safety, transport generally or the country as a whole. They have to be seen in the context of competing priorities and in the sensible use of money that is allocated to such jobs. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will have some sympathy with the point being made, even if he does not like the wording of our amendment. I hope that he will be able to say that the Government accept that efficiency is important and that they will find a way of ensuring that not only effectiveness but a sense of efficiency will be provided for. 
 If amendments Nos. 172 and 173 were accepted, we would have the means to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of, among other things, the performance of the authority's traffic manager. You were not here this morning, Miss Begg, when we had a minor discussion about giving traffic managers five-year contracts so that one could decide whether they had done a good job before reappointing them at the end of that period. The Government did not much like that, but I hope that they will at least accept that there is a need to monitor the boss's work very closely. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to include monitoring of the traffic manager's performance as a second best. Sometimes, the Opposition must settle for second best or even less than that. We did not win the argument this morning, and the Minister may not like the wording of the amendment, but I hope at least to persuade him to accept the principle of making some reference to monitoring the performance of a person who has been appointed to a designated job under the Bill.

John Thurso: I shall speak to amendment No. 99, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). Clause 16, which we debated this morning, sets out the network management duty, and I accepted the Minister's doctrine as regards undue specificity. Clause 17, on the other hand, deals with the arrangements for network management, or, in other words, with the detail. It seems, therefore, that some specificity would be helpful rather than undue in this instance.
 The amendment would make it clear that traffic management and the traffic manager should not take precedence over local transport plans and regional transport strategies. The Transport Act 2000 sets out important duties in that regard, and issues of traffic management and road use cannot be seen in isolation when an overall strategy is being considered at local or 
 regional level. For example, introducing or withdrawing a bus route would have a considerable impact on whether car use increased or decreased and, therefore, on the plans and strategies required for the use of that road. A similar argument would pertain where a new train service was introduced or an existing one was withdrawn. 
 We have rightly placed a pretty strong requirement on local and regional authorities to produce plans, and it would be rather illogical to allow a traffic manager simply to work in isolation, without having proper regard to those plans. It would therefore be appropriate to prevent the traffic manger from being able, in exercising their traffic management duties, to change a strategy that democratically elected bodies had arrived at locally or nationally. I ask the Government to consider how that could be done.

Tony McNulty: As I said to Mr. Beard this morning, it will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. I hope that our proceedings will pick up pace so that no one slaps a fixed-penalty notice on the Committee for being tardy. Let me also say in passing that if I look vaguely timid, it is because my fellow Minister is not with us today. I also had the special in the Tea Room, which never bodes well for a restful afternoon, in Committee or otherwise.
 Amendment No. 153 requires local traffic authorities to take account of guidance from the appropriate national authority when determining specific network management policies or objectives in relation to different roads. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is seeking to do with that amendment, but he will know from the paper that I tabled this morning that we are seeking to draw things as broadly as possible in terms of the network management duty, in consultation with local government. There will of course, in a general sense, be an attempt to clarify the interface at boundary level. We will deal with permits in regulations in part 3, when we address clause 36, where there may be some specific trans-border issues. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 172 would change subsection (5)(b) to require efficiency as well as effectiveness to be monitored in decision-making processes and the implementation of decisions. That would be otiose. It is not needed. Clause 16 already requires that a local traffic authority's objectives will need to be achieved 
''so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations, policies and objectives'',
 not least among which will be value for money and affordability: the traffic management duty being taken in the round with all the other resources of the local authority. That allows an authority to decide what will be prudent and proportionate when meeting the duty. That is in the Bill, and I do not think that adding ''efficiency'' will aid things.

Greg Knight: Before the Minister concludes his remarks on this group of amendments, will he tell the Committee his opinion
 of amendment No. 154? This morning, he suggested en passant that guidance would be forthcoming. Therefore, I presume that he will agree to that amendment.

Tony McNulty: As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, has said that amendment is not necessary, I was going to give an arcane answer to that arcane question. I may still do so in a slightly broader way without delaying the Committee.
 Any local authority that does not properly consider the cost-benefit and financial implications of their actions will be subject to scrutiny under the regimes put in place as part of the wider modernisation agenda. That relates to the broad sense of what we mean by ''obligations, policies and objectives'' in clause 16.

David Wilshire: I am afraid that I do not buy the Minister's argument about efficiency. The only reference to that in clause 16 is in subsection (2)(a), which mentions
''the more efficient use of their road network''.
 There is no mention of financial efficiency. 
 The Minister relies on the well-worn assurance that there is a general obligation and refers the Committee to the local traffic authority's other ''obligations, policies and objectives'' but there is no suggestion that efficiency should be included in that. If the Minister wants us to accept that we do not need to use the word ''efficiency'' because of that general statement, why do we need ''effectiveness''? If efficiency is carried by clause 16, surely so is effectiveness. If the Minister wants to single one of those out, he means by implication that the other does not matter.

Tony McNulty: I am struck by a sense of déjà vu. I have not committed the entire Hansard account of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to memory, but I think that we had many debates about effectiveness and efficiency meaning something different as a set phrase than when one or other is used on its own. The arguments were as obtuse then as they are now.

David Wilshire: At least I am consistent.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that if nothing else.
 The phrase ''obligations, policies and objectives'' is deliberately all embracing: it refers to the obligations, policies and objectives of the entire council, rather than just its highways authority. It does not mean only value for money or the well-worn assessment and appraisal methodologies for particular transport projects that will aid network management. It also means efficiency in terms of best value regime. The concept of efficiency is well rooted in that and in the subsequent best value performance indicators. I am not trying to be deliberately obstructive, but the hon. Gentleman will find that his concerns, which I share, are covered by the phrase, ''obligations, policies and objectives'' in the third line of clause 16, rather than by the word ''efficient'' later in the clause. 
 Amendment No. 99 is otiose, not least because the broad principles on the network management duty have already been outlined in the guidance. The first line refers to consideration of broad principles and therefore the issues that local authorities need to work through for their network, such as links to local transport and other plans. The local highway authority will not supersede local transport or community plans. The way in which the authority determines how best to achieve its statutory network management duty will be rooted in the local transport plan and other plans, not least the regional transport plan. The achievement of the network management duty must occur in the natural context set at a local level by the Government. It is not useful to suggest that work done in pursuance of the duty by local traffic authorities will take precedence. That will not help to improve the Bill. 
 I have been in charge of local transport plans for the past six months and have found that some larger maintenance projects take three or four years to come to fruition. There may be more pressing work in an area, but to achieve the network management duty a local authority may have to do work that appears to be contradictory to the long-term objectives of the plan. Ultimately, however, by remedying something in one part of its area, the authority will fulfil the local transport plan overall. Fulfilment of the network duty must be rooted in the local transport plan and other plans. It is not a case of one taking precedence over the other. However, the duty must be flexible enough to supersede the local transport plan if necessary . 
 On my giving my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East an arcane answer, amendment No. 154 would replace the word ''may'' with ''will'' in clause 18 . That may sound reasonable to those of us versed in English, but that is not the case according to the lawyers. I am told that ''shall'' or ''will'' can be interpreted as meaning that we must ensure that guidance is absolutely comprehensive in all respects of clauses 16 and 17. The guidance would have to encompass everything that anyone could want to know about the achievability of a network management duty. 
 The word ''may'' gives scope for omission. It would not require the advisory guidance to take account of every local circumstance for all 142 or so highway authorities. If we insert the word ''will'', an aspect that might be unique to Cumbria and have no relevance to the rest of the country would have to be included. That could be omitted and still provide cogent and prudent national advice. Scope for omission gives us flexibility in the tortured language that we legislate in, rather than the tortured use of the language that we talk in. In that context, I ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment. All the serious points that have been raised are adequately covered elsewhere.

Brian White: On the basis of that obscure explanation of the English language, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Guidance to local traffic authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I seek some information from the Minister. He referred to the language used by lawyers, and in this clause, the first sentence states that the
''appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local traffic authorities''.
 What does he mean by the word ''publish''? Legally, something is published if it is given to a person other than the author. Does he envisage that the guidance will be published only for local traffic authorities, or will it reach a wider audience? I sincerely hope that it is intended for ''publish'' to be interpreted in the widest sense. Every local library and local newspaper should have a copy of the guidance. I should like to see to a copy when it is published, so I hope the Minister will agree to put one in the Library. 
 I say that because subsection (2) says: 
''In performing those duties a local traffic authority shall''—
 now we have the word ''shall''— 
''have regard to any such guidance.''
 In other words, if the local traffic authority does not follow the guidance, it is in breach of a duty. If the guidance is not widely published, how will the public know whether their traffic authority is in breach of the duty under which they are supposed to operate? I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that a copy of the guidance will be available to any member of the public on request. It would be unfair to expect the Minister to tell us everything that he thinks will be in the guidance today.

Christopher Chope: Why?

Greg Knight: I think it is fair that the Minister listens to arguments that are adduced as the Bill progresses through Parliament. That may cause him to put more into the guidance than he would do otherwise. I do not criticise him for not producing a copy of the guidance today. However, I hope that when he and his officials consider the framework of the guidance, he will be willing to take on board my suggestion that whenever roadworks involve the closure or narrowing of a carriageway, a complaints telephone number should be affixed to a temporary sign so that aggrieved motorists have a point of contact through which they can express their concerns.
 Reference was made this morning to local authorities sometimes not being on the ball and causing more disruption than when the utilities companies dig up a road. It would be worth while for the motorist to know who to call with a valid complaint about what is happening. I hope that the guidance will require those who undertake work on the highway to display such a number.

Tony McNulty: I may have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's last point and it can be thrown in the pot for discussion. I make no apology for having no guidance here now, not least for the reasons that he suggested. It would have been presumptuous of me—nay, arrogant—to produce such guidance before the
 Committee had even started. The last Government governed by diktat every now and then, but we seek to be as expansive, involving and inclusive as possible. We want the guidance to emerge with the Committee's collective wisdom. In addition, as I think I said before, we seek to hold the widest possible consultation with interested parties, such as utilities, local authorities and local government associations. We shall undertake to conduct that process as quickly as we can.
 I have laid a paper before the Committee that describes roughly what will be in the guidance, but that by no means includes an exclusive list. We certainly intend to publish that information in the widest sense of the word, not the narrow sense. I am sure that it was a great honour for my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to receive a copy. The information is due to be published. We seek a far wider dissemination of it in the consultative stage and, ultimately, in the final stage. Quite what the form will be beyond the normal practice of ensuring that highway authorities have the information, putting it on the website and whatever else, I do not know. However, I undertake to ensure that the information will be published in the widest sense. The document will be a public document. 
 The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is right that the ''shall'' in subsection (2) is supposed to apply with force rather than be optional. Regardless of whether obtuse things prevail in Cumbria and not in Cornwall, all the relevant parties under the Bill will be obliged to satisfy us with their network management duty. They have no choice or flexibility other than in how they do that, but the fact that they must do it is provided for in the Bill. With those assurances, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. He has provided me with the assurances that I sought.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Power to require information relating to network management

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in
page 8, line 16, after 'period', insert 'not exceeding 3 months'.
 I hope that the Committee will not end up watching dawn rise over the Thames before we reach the point the Minister wants us to get to. 
 Amendment No. 177 makes the same point as amendment No. 174, only it is expressed differently. I will speak to amendment No. 174, but I hope the Minister accepts that my comments also relate to amendment No. 177, because that will save me from repeating myself. 
 Both amendments seek to impose time limits. A report must be produced within a specified period not exceeding three months. I accept that I have plucked three months out of the air for the sake of debate, but it is a reasonable period and the principle is more 
 important than the figure. I do not care whether the Minister would prefer two or four months. Like the Minister, I have been in local government and suspect that he, too, may have found that work can take some time to be completed if there is no means of persuading people to pull their finger out. A three-month period would do just that. 
 Amendment No. 177 says the same thing about giving an authority time to make representations. If we say, ''You must have time to make representations,'' it could mean any length of time. I have had cases in which someone said that we could not proceed until someone else had commented, which meant that those cases lasted for ever and a day. There should be a cut-off point wherever the Bill says that something must happen. I may table amendments to that effect to other provisions. However, for the purposes of this debate, the cut-off point should be three months.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) makes a good point, although his period of three months is rather generous.
 Before I entered the House, I worked in the private sector. At all levels, until someone becomes the ultimate boss, one is asked for information in the normal course of the business that one is conducting. If at any stage I had said to my bosses that I would deliver the information in three months, I would have been out of the door or pensioned off to a very early retirement because they would have decided that I was not up to it. If I had offered to send them the information in three weeks, I would also have been out of the door. If information is required and it is connected with, and collected for, the purpose of the authority or the business, it should be made available more rapidly. 
 I understand that the public sector works to different time scales compared with the private sector. It can take six months to get enough of the 550,000 civil servants to answer a letter that a Member of Parliament has sent to a Minister or a Department. None of us find that satisfactory. I always say to my constituents that they will get an answer from me by return because it is just my secretary and I, but that when we need an answer from the Government it takes six months because there are 550,000 people helping to give it. 
 We must move on from that culture. One month would be a more sensible time frame. It is still three or four times as long as it would take anybody in the private sector to produce information for their boss or higher authority. It is, however, right that my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to initiate better habits in the public sector in the timely provision of needed information, as it has to collect that information anyway.

Tony McNulty: While we are playing at macho toy soldiers in the battle between public and private, I assure the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne that I will be harsher than the two of them put together. The Bill does not specify an arbitrary three
 months, two months or whatever the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but clearly says, ''within a specified period.'' That means that if the Secretary of State or the national authority deems that the information is required in a week, the period will be a week. If the information is required in two or three months because the work is substantial, the period will be two or three months. What he and the hon. Gentleman are trying to achieve is already in the Bill, which is far harsher than either of them would have it.
 I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Spelthorne recognised that he was being utterly arbitrary in plucking the figure of three months from the sky. That is not good enough. If the relevant national authority requires information, and if there is a good reason why it is required—it will be not simply to employ someone at a local level, but the pursuance of the local authority achieving its national statutory duty as outlined—if it takes two days, four days, two weeks or two months to provide that information, that is what will the specified time will be. I will cling to that flexibility with every breath in my body, because it is utterly important to ensure that the information flow is right for the benefit of the centre and the local level, as well as for the achievement of the national duty. In that context, the Bill is twice as hard and firm as the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman urge, so I ask them to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire: That was not a particularly good lesson. The trouble is that I cannot help warming to the Minister, especially when he is wrong, as he is now. My amendment does not say that information must be produced within three months. It says everything that the Minister says, plus a little more. All it says is that the specified period, which the Minister warmed to, should not exceed three months. He is absolutely right that that period might be a day.
 The Bill says that the person concerned can specify how long things will take and can make a judgment about whether providing the information is simply a matter of looking something up in a file or doing a little research. In effect, my amendment says that however much the word ''specified'' is used, under no circumstances can the period extend beyond three months. 
 The Minister's enthusiastic response to ''specified'' did not state a period beyond two months, so he appears to accept that everything could be done within three months, otherwise he would have said that it might take six. He did not, however, so he seems to accept that three months is a long stop. In the circumstances, because he said how important it is to be quick, I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in
page 8, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in
clause 20, page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
 No. 182, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (10).

David Wilshire: The amendments all raise the same point. One of the weird things about this place is that, to trigger any explanation or debate, we have to try to delete something. The amendments are designed purely to get the Minister to say a little more about why the Mayor of London has to have things sent to him. I have nothing against the Mayor of London—well, I have, but if I went down that route, you would rule me out of order, Miss Begg, because it is not wholly to do with the Bill. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister explained in more detail why the Mayor has to be involved, as well as the London boroughs. The amendments are merely a means of launching the debate.

Tony McNulty: I was going to be churlish and call these the ''Oh dear, Norris will never be Mayor'' amendments, on the basis that the Conservatives will never win the mayoral election and therefore want to remove any reference to the Mayor. However, I understand and appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for Spelthorne made his case.
 Transport for London is responsible for 5 per cent. of the roads across the boroughs, but 30 per cent. of the traffic. TFL has told me that it fully supports the network management duty and recognises that there is a two-way flow not only between TFL and the Government, but between TFL and the boroughs. There is already a co-ordination and liaison role for TFL, but if we are imposing a specific duty in that regard, it is incumbent on us to give TFL the scope to receive the information that it may need subsequently to carry out that co-ordination. That is all that clauses 19, 20 and 21 are designed to do.

John Redwood: If this clause remains unamended, will it allow the Government to find out from the Mayor in advance whether, for example, he wanted to take out all the lumps, bumps and humps but put in speed cameras on every street? We hear that that is his policy. Does the Minister currently have the power to find out whether that is true, and will he have the power under this legislation?

Tony McNulty: That relates to the relationship between TFL and central Government, rather than that between TFL and the boroughs, which is what many of these clauses are about. As I understand it, the Government have the ability to be informed regularly by TFL about whatever it is doing in the more general sense. I see TFL in three or four different capacities on a monthly basis. That includes a specific group on London's roads and street works. With regard to the tube, there are also regular meetings with the Mayor and with Bob Kiley, so there is discussion at the centre.
 Much of this debate is about the interplay between TFL, the boroughs and what notification or otherwise comes back to us at the centre. Matters have to be referred to the Mayor and TFL as well. It is essential to underpin that co-ordination and liaison by building on the strategic role in respect of traffic that the Mayor and TFL already have. It is therefore appropriate and not terribly burdensome that there is the flow of information alluded to in clauses 19, 20 and 21. 
 If the amendments were accepted, there would be a significant gap in respect of notification and an inability for the boroughs, TFL and the centre to intermesh in quite the way envisaged in the Bill at national, regional strategic and local level. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Spelthorne to withdraw amendment No. 175 and not to press amendments Nos. 179 and 182.

David Wilshire: In future, when people want to see what was the thinking behind the legislation, it will be helpful to have that explanation in the Hansard record. I am grateful to the Minister for putting that information in the public domain and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Intervention notices

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in
page 8, line 32, leave out 'considers' and insert 
 'has reasonable grounds to believe'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 177, in 
page 8, line 39, after 'period', insert 'not exceeding three months'.
 No. 178, in 
page 9, line 5, after 'authority', insert 'reasonably'.

Anne Begg: Should I call Mr. Chope?

David Wilshire: We try to parcel out the responsibility.

Anne Begg: I should look to see who wants to speak.

David Wilshire: Whether you were in the Chair or not, Miss Begg, I do not know, but it has been pointed out that the official Opposition team contains three very eminent people and a Whip. You will get the idea of what we are doing.
 Turning to amendments Nos. 176 and 178, the Minister will have a sense of déjà vu because these are things that I regularly talk about. Clause 20(1) reads: 
''If the appropriate national authority considers that a local traffic authority may be failing properly to perform any of their duties'',
 it can do various things. I do not like the idea that an ''appropriate national authority'', late on a Thursday or a Friday afternoon, can, on a whim, decide that it will do something. It should have good reason to do it. 
 I should prefer the provision to include the wording ''reasonable grounds to believe'', rather than simply ''considers''. That authority could ''consider'' for all sorts of reasons, be they bad or not, or no reason at all. I have used that argument regularly, and I have heard the Minister's answer regularly. He did not persuade me last time, and I predict that he is unlikely to do so now. 
 Amendment No. 176 makes that point, and amendment No. 178 to clause 20(4) would mean that any national authority ''reasonably considers'' information specified in the notice, rather than just ''considers''. Otherwise, I envisage a situation in which someone simply says something—on a fishing expedition for information that they fancy obtaining—that is neither sensible nor reasonable. Under the amendments, such a statement would have to be reasonably connected with the purpose of the clause. The other amendment in the group is No. 177, to which I spoke earlier.

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, I shall leave amendment No. 177 to one side. In the five minutes since we last discussed it, we have not convinced each other, and we are unlikely to do so now. On amendments Nos. 176 and 178, I would agree with him, were it not for clause 18. We shall be issuing guidance on the network duty and the criteria for intervention, which will outline completely what is and is not worthy of consideration by the authorities. It will not be a case of someone, late on a Thursday night, receiving a bad phone call from another person and thinking, ''I know, we'll go and intervene in Dorset, just to get my own back and to make me feel better.''
 Clear guidance has been set down on what the national authorities can appropriately consider the local traffic authority to be failing properly to perform. I hope to show, when the guidance emerges and we discuss later clauses, that we see intervention as a last resort. We envisage a series of discussions, and perhaps mentoring by other highway authorities that are in a far better position to recapture the failing nature of the highway authority, as well as a series of other measures, some in guidance and some that will be agreed by local government. 
 Everything possible will have been done before intervention is considered against guidance criteria. The word ''reasonably'' would be otiose because, in law at least, all public authorities act reasonably, although our experiences may beg to differ. If they do not, scope and redress are laid out clearly in broader administration and case law. We do not need ''reasonable'', but the reasonability and the detailed criteria against which to measure the success or failure of the network management duty will be clearly laid out in guidance. It will not be as arbitrary as the hon. Gentleman suggests, although I fully understand his reasons. 
 Of themselves and on their own, and with nothing standing behind them, I might have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about those amendments and how he wants to change the nature of the provisions. However, with the guidance and the regulations outlined in the document that I 
 gave to the Committee this morning, as well as what we think will be the network management duty prior to our discussion with all interested parties and the criteria for intervention all underpinning the clause, I suggest that the language offered by the hon. Gentleman is unnecessary. I ask him to withdraw the amendment. As for amendment No. 177, we have been there, done that—I just say ''ditto''.

David Wilshire: I have the wonderful feeling, because of what the Minister said, that I am within an inch of winning the argument. If I understood correctly, he said that if it were not for clause 18, he would have some sympathy for the amendment. I take that to mean that he would hold his nose while agreeing with me. That suggests to me that if there were a reference to clause 18, he would be right, and I would agree with him. However, it seems that what I suggest for clause 20—that the appropriate national authority acts if it has ''reasonable grounds to believe''—is a way of doing things that the Minister does not like.
 I think that the Minister said that the appropriate wording would be ''if the appropriate national authority, having regard to the guidance contained in clause 18, considers''. I think that that is what he said, but he added that that was unnecessary because of clause 18. We need a reference to clause 18, because reference is made to clauses 16 and 17. That is why I feel so close, and I do not want to spoil it. 
 In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Minister's choice of words in order to establish the point on which he and I agree. I shall be happy to withdraw, in the hope—perhaps he will confirm it—that he will come back with an amendment on Report to pick up on the point about which we both agree.

John Redwood: I am prompted to rise because I think that my hon. Friend is on to an even more important point than I realised at the beginning of this extraordinarily interesting debate, and we need to see it through.
 There could occasionally be political disagreement between the national and local authorities—it has been known in this wicked world—and we need to protect both sides from politics. We need to legislate for all the nation in a non-partisan spirit, so that the legislation works. That means that the national authority should be able to intervene only for the good reasons set out in the legislation. It should not be able to intervene on any other basis, such as, for example, because it disagreed with the mix of objectives and policies that a particular local authority was following, even though they were entirely reasonable in relation to the electoral balance of that area. 
 If anything, my hon. Friend has underdone his case with the words that he has chosen. However, the Minister should think again, because the Bill offers no protection at the moment, and we need to protect duly elected councils from politically motivated intervention by the national authority, which I am sure is not the intention.

Tony McNulty: I understand that point; again, however, it is not necessary. We may be close, but I
 am going disappoint the hon. Gentleman: with the best will in the world, I shall not come back with anything on Report. Clause 20 clearly refers to the power to intervene if a local traffic authority fails properly to perform any of its duties under sections 16 and 17. Those two clauses are all about the duty and the arrangements for network management.
 Clause 18(1) states: 
''The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local traffic authorities about the techniques of network management or any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by sections 16 and 17.''
 The reference to clauses 16 and 17 in clauses 18 and 20 means that the thing is double locked, so we do not need to refer to clause 18 in clause 20. It is there by virtue of the reference to the principal clauses 16 and 17. Without my going into the issue of public administration and the capricious application of national laws, there are any number of ways to achieve the balance, or, as some would have it, the wicked ways, that are well beyond the scope of this Bill and this Committee in terms of a difference between the national and local perspectives, the national guidance and the clause being imposed, on a local authority of a different hue. During the lifetime of this Government—I cannot remember much about the last Government, who used to abolish things without intervening on them—I do not think that any scrutiny of how we have intervened, regardless of the success or otherwise, has been marred by some skewed partisan choice. I suspect that the record will show that the Labour Government has imposed and intervened on Labour local authorities at least as much as on Liberal Democrat or Conservative authorities. 
 With the triple lock between the reference to clauses 16 and 17 and their backing, the points that the hon. Gentleman made are clearly covered, for the reasons I outlined earlier. That is I why I ask him to withdraw his amendment and not to hold his breath waiting for me to come back with something on Report, because he will be bluer than he is now if he holds his breath too long—blue in the political sense.

David Wilshire: I am impressed by that, although it was not quite as impressive as the praise from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, which is praise indeed. I subscribe to the Texas principle of politics, particularly when it comes to tabling amendments, which is that if enough holes are drilled in Texas, oil comes out of one of them. Every so often I come up with a gem, and my right hon. Friend has identified one this afternoon, for which I am grateful.
 I do not intend to hold my breath. The Minister has realised that he has not persuaded me. It is always easy for an incoming Conservative Government—as we will be—to abolish things, because the current Government sets up so many silly things with so many targets to abolish. We look forward to doing that. Nevertheless, the Minister has told me what I have to do between now and Report stage. If he is not going to come forward with the words he prefers, I will. In order that I may go away and draft something different, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I should like to ask the Minister a question. This is the first in a series of clauses dealing with the enforcement of network management duties. Does he envisage those duties giving rise to third party rights to enforce or seek remedies for their breach? Does he think that this duty will stand alongside the duties under the Highways Act 1980, which are often the subject of civil action by those who have suffered as a result of a failure by local authorities to maintain the highway?
 I wanted to debate the clause because I want to put on the record our strong opposition to this draconian and unnecessary part of the Bill, which introduces a long-winded process for enforcing network management duties. The Minister has more or less indicated that he intends never to use the powers that we are going to give him and which we will debate at further length on subsequent clauses. If he thinks that he has persuaded us—I do not think he has—he has certainly not persuaded the all-party Local Government Association, which is unanimous in saying that the proposed intervention powers in clauses 20 to 31 could have serious implications for the independence and local accountability of local traffic authorities. The LGA is concerned that those proposals contradict the Government's previously stated commitment to facilitate local freedoms and flexibilities for local government, and it would like the clauses to be withdrawn. I hope that the Minister will, on reflection and in due course, seek to withdraw them, because at the moment they create an unnecessary atmosphere of distrust, when we should be promoting an atmosphere of trust between the Government, Parliament as the legislature, and those who have important responsibilities for keeping our road network working. 
 The Local Government Association says that it has agreed a protocol with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on how central Government interventions in council activities should work. Apparently, the Minister believes that the proposed intervention powers would meet the spirit of that protocol, but that is certainly not the LGA's view. It says, and I agree, that the intervention powers are unnecessary and will do a lot of damage to what is otherwise a reasonable Bill in many respects. 
 This part of the Bill is a throwback to the tsar system that the Government are so beloved of. The traffic director will apparently have two different modes: a monitoring and intervening mode and a direct control mode. I am delighted to see a Chief Whip—

Gillian Merron: Not Chief!

Christopher Chope: A Whip, who knows a lot about direct control and, who I am sure, will be impressed by the thorough examination being given.

John Redwood: Perhaps my hon. Friend should remember that the current Chief Whip won this week, but the position could be little different on Report. My hon. Friend may be a few weeks early.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is quite right. I was anticipating what has not yet happened. That reminds me of what happened under the community charge legislation when the most difficult time for the then Government was not Second Reading but Report, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to remind the Government Whip of that.
 We are discussing the creation of a new traffic tsar, which prompts me to ask the Minister what happened to the last transport tsar, Lord Birt? His name is in our minds today as a former director-general of the BBC—perhaps he will be brought back a chairman of the BBC. Does he still have a job as transport tsar, and where will he fit in? Will he be superior or subservient to the traffic director, or will he be the same person? 
 This part of the Bill introduces serious intervention powers for the Government. Having had the privilege of being a Minister dealing with local authorities, I do not think that it has ever proved sensible for Government to try to intervene directly in the responsibilities of local authorities. Even during the days of Hatton in Liverpool and Bookbinder in Derbyshire, Conservative Governments held back from using such powers as they had to intervene directly. The caution that we exercised was sensible, and I certainly believe that the proposals in the Bill will never be used and are therefore redundant. 
 Why does the Minister believes that the new powers are necessary when section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 already provides a power of intervention by the national authority with respect to any serious failure to co-ordinate street works. I understand that that power has never been used. Does he envisage that the powers in clauses 20 to 31 will similarly never be used, although they will take up quite a lot of debating time in this House and in the other place.

John Thurso: The point made about the intervention powers was well made, and I have serious reservations about whether the Government need to reserve to themselves that level of powers.
 I have a slightly different approach, which I hope we will discuss when we come to the amendments on the next clause, and I shall reserve my arguments until then, but I would certainly support the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) if he pressed his amendment to a vote.

Tony McNulty: I said from a sedentary position, for which I apologise, that if the hon. Member for Christchurch thought that Third Reading was the difficult part of the poll tax legislation—

Christopher Chope: Report stage.

Tony McNulty: I meant Report stage. I merely said that the 1997 election, rather than Report stage, was its final denouement.
 On the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, the answer to the first one, if he can remember it, is no. It was about third parties and specifically the relationship between a local authority and the national authority. There is no locus at all for third party rights in that relationship and that is not envisaged. 
 The hon. Gentleman referred to the Highways Act 1980, but specific actions brought by individuals about the specific state of specific sites in terms of the highways network are totally outside the scope of this part of the Bill.

John Redwood: How does the clause, with its very strong powers for central intervention and control, square with the Government's recently stated policy of more devolution, more power and more independence for local authorities?

Tony McNulty: As that was the only matter of substance raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I was about to come to it.
 The general duty of street authorities to co-ordinate works in section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 specifically concerns the execution of work of all kinds in the streets for which an authority is responsible. It does not concern the far wider network management duty that we have put in the Bill, which goes far beyond that specific duty concerning street works. It is not a replication of section 59 of the 1991 Act, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It includes street works, but goes way beyond that in terms of traffic flow and overall management. 
 The intervention process is certainly within the context of the protocol suggested by the Local Government Association and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have stated clearly that when it comes to the network management duty and all the regulations and guidance associated with the whole of part 2, on which I produced a little note, the LGA will be at the table and discussing fully not only the guidance alluded to in clause 18 on definitions and measurement of the duty, but also the criteria for making intervention orders in clause 27. The LGA will be sitting down with us, as will other parties, to determine what the criteria will be for intervention. 
 As I said this morning, this is not about a Stalinist sledgehammer to crack a nut in Christchurch or anywhere else. It is simply about getting to the stage where intervention powers can be utilised, as a last resort, but in the spirit of the protocol. As I said barely half an hour ago, subsequent discussions with the LGA in terms of guidance and regulations, will be a real participative process. I freely admit that we want to get to the stage where the power is never used. That does not mean that it is redundant. There may well be recalcitrant local authorities who, no matter what is done in invoking LGA colleagues to mentor them, or having officials from the Department work closely and informally with them, or whatever, resist getting to the stage at which the network management duty is fulfilled, and there would, ultimately, have to be intervention. I can cheerfully say—this is not a contradictory statement—that, as a Minister, I want the clause and the powers to be in the Bill, but I hope 
 that they are never used. I would consider its use to be a failure on our part as well as on that of the local authority. 
 That sort of grown-up, mature relationship between central and local government is rapidly being restored by the Government, and that is long, long overdue. I have never heard such a travesty as the notion that somehow all was milk and honey under the Conservative Government and that we are now the vicious slayers of local government. Rather than intervene if they did not like something, they abolished it. That is slightly more draconian than what we are suggesting. There will be input at every stage in terms of the LGA. 
 I do not know where the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) got the notion of a traffic tsar. A traffic director put in, in the last instance, will be very localised and will deal with localised problems in a highway authority area. It is a good line to suggest that that is a tsar or, if that is too politically incorrect for him, a tsarina, but that is not the case. The appointment of a traffic director is part and parcel of that intervention. The director will work with the local authority to turn round whatever difficulties it has with the network management duty and get out as quickly as possible. This is not the hoary old method of the Audit Commission sending a whole team in to take over a local authority, as happened back in the 1970s and 1980s. The process is participatory, with an end game to the intervention, if it proves necessary. 
 I hope, in all seriousness, that that will not be necessary. It is well within our policy of flexibility, fairness and working with, rather than doing things to, local government. I urge my hon. Friends to support the clause. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Intervention orders

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in
page 9, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(1A) An intervention order must specify the failures of the local traffic authority properly to perform a duty under sections 16 and 17 and require the authority to comply with that duty within the stated period of time. 
 (1B) An intervention order may make provision for or in connection with the replacement of the local traffic authority's traffic manager appointed under section 17(2)'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 102, in 
page 9, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (9).
 Amendment No. 104, in 
page 9, line 22, leave out 'and'.
 Amendment No. 105, in 
page 9, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(da) give particulars of the expected period for which the traffic officer will be appointed 
 (db) set out details of the process by which the intervention order will be removed'.
 Amendment No. 180, in 
page 9, line 38, at end insert— 
 '(5A) All reports produced in furtherance of subsection (5) above must be published in full within 3 months.'.
 Amendment No. 181, in 
page 9, line 44, at end insert 
 'provided that they do not exceed the powers capable of being conferred on a traffic manager under the provisions of this Act.'.
 New clause 19—Report to parliament— 
'The Secretary of State shall present a report on an annual basis to Parliament on the number and nature of intervention notices and orders issued in the previous year and their effects on local traffic authority performance with specific references to improvements in road safety.'.

John Thurso: The amendments follow directly from the debate that we have just had. I confess that if amendments Nos. 103 and 102 were accepted as they stand, they would not make any sense because they require amendment No. 101, which was not selected, to make them work. However, with your leave, Miss Begg, I will put forward the argument none the less.
 The purpose of the amendments is to look at the role of the traffic director, to accept that there may be times when intervention is appropriate and necessary, to look beyond the point at which a power is reserved to make an intervention, and to ask why the intervention must be made in the particular way prescribed in the Bill. There is no challenge to the right to intervene to correct and remedy what is not happening or what may be going wrong. 
 It seems to me that there are only two circumstances in which the Government may wish to intervene. One is when a local authority has failed in its duty to appoint a traffic manager. The other is when a traffic manager has been appointed but is failing to deliver. There is a simple remedy for that which does not require the appointment of a traffic director or any other of the remedies in the Bill. In the case of no traffic manager being appointed, if the Government took to themselves the power to make such an appointment, that would correct the problem. 
 If a traffic manager is failing, surely it is not necessary to impose above him another layer of authority that, even if it were not a whole team, would require support, offices and all the things that go with a growing bureaucracy. The objective could be achieved by the removal of the offending individual, and his replacement with a traffic manager acceptable to the Government. Clauses 22 to 30 provide an extremely complex, very costly, highly bureaucratic 
 remedy, when a simple solution would be to permit the Government to intervene either by appointing a traffic manager where none exists or replacing an existing traffic manager who is deemed to have failed. 
 It is interesting that the powers given to the traffic director, who has been referred to as a tsar or tsarina, are considerably greater than those granted to the traffic manager. If the traffic manager can successfully do the job with the powers that we have dealt with so far, why does the traffic director need all sorts of supplementary powers to enable him to ensure that the traffic manager's job is done successfully? That seems like a vast sledgehammer to crack a pretty small and simple nut. 
 Finally, I come to finance. The powers, the support team and all the things that it is deemed necessary for the traffic director to undertake have to be funded. Where will the funding come from? The Government have decided that it will be from the local authority. The local authority, therefore, not only has to pay the traffic manager that it already has, and to support the network required for that job, but to pay for a second, complete set of bureaucracy. That is wholly inappropriate. 
 Were the Government to adopt my very simple remedy, which would do everything that they seek to achieve in terms of intervention, we could delete clauses 22 to 30, as they would have no relevance. If they could accept that approach, they would dramatically shorten our time in Committee. I ask the Minister why we need the complicated business of a traffic director to solve the essentially simple problem of needing either to remedy the fact that there is no traffic manager or to replace a failing one with an individual who can do the job and is approved by the Minister and his colleagues?

Christopher Chope: I do not wish to repeat what the hon. Gentleman has said. He made constructive and sensible suggestions, and I commend them to the Minister and hope that he will respond positively.

Brian White: I shall speak to new clause 19, which concerns one of my hobby-horse subjects, which is how this place works. We are reasonably good at the process of putting Bills through Parliament, and we are getting better at pre-legislative scrutiny. However, what is often missing is post-implementation scrutiny. One of my reasons for tabling the amendment is that we ought to consider, as a matter of course, how we review whether Bills work. I appreciate that this is an anorak subject; I have discussed it with the Minister in the Tea Room before now. However, it is important to get right the balance between the Executive and Parliament.
 The aim of the new clause is to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise whether intervention orders are working and, consequentially, to consider whether road safety has been improved. If the Minister will not accept the new clause—I suspect that he will give us reasonable arguments why he will not—will he consider making such information available as a matter of course under his Department's publication schemes, which are now 
 under review in the context of freedom of information legislation?

David Wilshire: I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 180 and 181. The Minister might be able to help by saying that neither is necessary, but I have a view on subsection (5)(b), which states:
''The general powers which may be conferred on the traffic director are powers authorising him . . . to report on any matter''.
 That means that any report made by somebody who is appointed to overrule other people needs to be made public so that the public can see that the power taken to appoint such a person to wield such powers is being used sensibly. Perhaps the Minister can persuade me that amendment No. 180 is not necessary by saying that, in this case, to report on any matter means that the report is public. 
 Amendment No. 181—hobby-horses have been ridden round this Committee Room, and I shall ride another one for a moment—concerns subsection (7)(b): 
''An order may . . . confer ancillary powers on the traffic director''.
 I hope that the Minister can assure us that specifying ancillary powers rules out the possibility of giving powers that go beyond the powers in the Bill—it is not a means of extending the provisions by diktat. The amendment—probably clumsily, because I am neither a parliamentary draftsman nor a lawyer—says that if there are to be powers to confer ancillary powers on the traffic director, they should be conferred only if they do not exceed the powers capable of being conferred on the traffic manager within the terms of the legislation. That is what I am driving at, and it is possible that the Minister can put me out of my misery.

Tony McNulty: I am not sure that I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his general misery, but I shall try in this specific case. Many of the points that have been made are reasonable. I do not agree with them but, as I have said, the measures need to be seen in the context of there being a stepped approach to intervention. We are still stuck in the mode of considering either everything going on tickety-boo locally or intervention, with nothing in between.
 Amendments Nos. 103 and 102 aim to change the provisions for structured and proportionate intervention. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) was honest enough to say, they are complemented by amendment No. 101 and others that would go much further in containing powers, even to the extent of deleting references to the traffic directors. Although those were not selected—the hon. Gentleman is playing with half a hand rather than a full one—I get the import of what he suggests. 
 Amendment No. 103 would create a requirement that an intervention order must give an authority time to improve performance in specified areas and makes provision for the authority's traffic manager to be replaced. As I have indicated already, that is precisely what we shall say in guidance. There is a series of steps 
 to go through before the last notion of intervention. Even when an intervention order is issued, that will be done in the context of what needs to be done to prevent the appointment of a traffic director. This is not about somebody in the Department for Transport waking up and thinking, ''We have a host of bureaucrats who are twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do, so let us make them traffic directors who can take over the functions of a range of authorities.'' The phased element will be in the guidance, and all local authorities will have to refer to it when considering how they will go about implementation.

John Thurso: For the purposes of the argument that I put forward, I am quite happy to accept that intervention is necessary, and, however imperfectly my amendments were drafted, the intention was not to suggest that it should not take place. The need for intervention is accepted. Everything that the Minister says after that—for instance, about a gradual approach—can therefore be accepted. Indeed, everything can be accepted up to the point of the issuing of the intervention order. My question is, why does the remedy have to be putting in a traffic director, rather than simply putting in a traffic manager, if there is not one already there, or replacing a failing traffic manager with an approved one?

Tony McNulty: Principally because the way in which we have designed the Bill means that the traffic manager belongs to and is part of the local authority. The traffic director would be someone from outside imposed on the authority as a matter of last resort. We are talking about not two elements of the same thing, but distinct roles involving different relationships.
 As astute members of the Committee will have noticed, there are no powers afforded to traffic managers under the Bill. Amendment No. 181 therefore makes no sense because it would insert the phrase 
''provided that they do not exceed the powers capable of being conferred on a traffic manager under the provisions of this Act.''
 Perhaps the amendment is terribly cunning and the hon. Member for Spelthorne has noticed that there are no powers conferred on a traffic manager. We simply want a designated officer at the local authority to perform the duty. In the spirit of local devolution, we leave the powers, and the question of how things are to be achieved, to local authorities. 
 The hon. Gentleman may have spotted that and his intention may be to ensure that traffic directors have the same powers as traffic managers—in other words, none. It is possible that this is a subtle and clever wrecking amendment, but I am not sure about that. I take the point about the balance between the traffic manager and the traffic director, but amendment No. 181 would not achieve anything. 
 We have had arguments before about reporting within three months or otherwise. The report is about responding to what is in the intervention order and about how the recovery plan, or action plan—whatever people want to call it—in the order is to be achieved. Many of the points made by the hon. 
 Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will be laid out in the order. 
 The intervention order will be specific to the local authority that is failing. If I have not made that clear, I apologise. As part of the intervention process, the order will bring with it a series of tasks that need to be carried out to enable the authority to get back on the road to achieving its statutory duty. It will be full of the particulars necessary to achieve that end. 
 I do not want to dwell unduly on the specifics, but the Bill mentions the ''particulars'', ''objectives'' and ''general powers'' necessary to get the authority into a position of recovery. Together with the guidance, the provisions are intended to cover everything that the hon. Gentleman suggests, including the expected period within which the traffic officer will be appointed and the details of the process by which the intervention order will be removed. I am talking about amendments Nos. 104 and 105. The order will be specific to the authority and will feature all the elements in question, including the recovery plan and the exit route for when the authority is on the road to success.

David Wilshire: I want to take the Minister back to amendment No. 180. He dealt with the question of three months. We have had that debate before, and I do not want to have it again, but he did not make his views clear on my point about publishing the report and putting it in the public domain—whether that happens within three months. That is the other part of amendment No. 180. I would be interested to hear his views on publishing the reports.

Tony McNulty: My view is that, when possible, the reports should be published and put in the public domain. I cannot give an absolute assurance that that will happen because there may be reasons why it cannot. I am speculating now, but a local authority could be failing partly because of an issue of financial probity involving two or three large projects. Recovery by a traffic director or an intervention order could involve a host of things, such as reports relating to specific commercial information on those projects. That is pure speculation, but there could be areas in which either commercial sensitivity or confidentiality should prevail for those reasons. I cannot give a universal commitment to the reports all being in the public domain, but I start from the premise that they should be unless there is a good reason for them not to be, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
 I think that I have broadly covered most of the points on the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will not be surprised that I am not minded to accept the ''anorak point''—his words, not mine—on new clause 19. Although I agree generally about matters being reported to Parliament, to do so in this case would be a replication. 
 I do not want to pre-empt discussions with local government and others on guidance and regulations, but it might be appropriate to report local interventions in performance reviews. We will have a 
 local transport plan, which will be a five-year plan with annual performance reviews, involving every highway authority. Given the number of local authorities, there might be 40 or 50 interventions in a terrible year, although I would hope not, as there should be no interventions if we are doing our job properly. 
 A cumulative report to Parliament of 40 or 50 reports individual to each highway authority would not be very informative. The annual performance reviews, which are public documents, might be the appropriate place for each highway authority to report whether there have been any interventions. That would be a more appropriate vehicle than that suggested in the ''anorak point'' made by my hon. Friend.

Christopher Chope: The Minister refers to the prospect of using the annual performance review in the local transport plan as a performance indicator. Will it definitely be one of the performance indicators?

Tony McNulty: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he does not listen. I clearly made that point. I added the caveat that, without pre-empting any subsequent discussions with local government or other authorities in terms of performance indicators or the network management duty, the annual performance review might be an appropriate model. It is certainly more appropriate than an annual review to Parliament of what is necessarily a locally focused intervention order. Therefore, it is not possible to give that guarantee.

John Thurso: I understand the Minister, but I am unconvinced by his argument. Let me check that I have understood correctly. He argues that clause 16 puts a duty on a local traffic authority to manage its road network. Clause 17(2), which refers to the arrangements, states that it must have a traffic manager who may or may not be employed by the local authority, according to what we have already agreed.
 The traffic director will therefore be imposed on the local authority and will take with him a whole panoply of power. That situation will be worse than I had imagined: it will interfere further with local authorities, and it cuts against the grain of the fact that we elect local authorities and, if they fail, our remedy is to vote them out. Imperfect though local authorities are, and in light of the Minister's answer, I am minded to ask the Committee for its opinion. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I hope that the Committee will reject the clause. As became apparent in our debate on the amendments, this is a centralising, bureaucratic measure, which has not been properly thought through. We had an indication earlier that the Government would use the intervention power only in extreme circumstances, but the Minister said in a throwaway line that there could be 40 or 50 interventions a year, adding that that was why it would not be appropriate to make an annual report to Parliament.
 The Minister talked about 40 or 50 interventions a year, yet he was rather impatient with us for asking about performance indicators. Surely, Parliament's role is to consider whether it would be appropriate and reasonable for the Government to take such enormous powers, and one way of testing that proposition is to examine how robust performance indicators would be. There are already performance indicators and annual performance reviews for local transport plans, so one would have expected the Minister to be able to tell us whether he would regard them as a key indicator of whether a local authority was performing its network management duties. However, he cannot even tell us that and simply says that he would like to discuss the matter privately outside Parliament. That is a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding, because it is for Parliament to decide whether the Government should have the powers that are before us, and it is for the Government to persuade Parliament that they should. However, they have not persuaded me that they need those powers, which are totally over the top. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Appointment of traffic director: supplementary

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in
page 10, line 25, after 'appropriate', insert— 
 '(ba) the appointment shall be revoked no later than six months after commencement unless a new order is made in accordance with the provisions set out in sections 20 and 21'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 183, in
page 10, line 25, after 'appropriate', insert 
 'provided that it does not allow for a term exceeding five years'.

John Thurso: This is a relatively small point, which need not detain the Committee long. The amendment
 would make this a sunset clause. Put simply, once an order had been made, it would have to be revisited no later than every six months to ensure that it was still required. The Minister partly answered the point in his comments about guidance, and I suspect that he will reply in broadly the same terms now. However, I would be interested to know why it would be inappropriate for the order to be reconsidered in a positive way every six months, rather than simply being left to lie.

David Wilshire: This is a complete rerun of an earlier debate, so perhaps the Committee can take it as read that I repeat everything that I said then.

Tony McNulty: As regards amendment No. 183, perhaps the Committee could also take it as read that I repeat what I said earlier. Let me add, however, that I would be horrified if any traffic director was in place for a year, let alone five years.
 That touches on amendment No. 107. As I said earlier, we envisage intervention orders outlining the particulars, objectives, general powers and exit strategy for the intervention. The process might take a month, but if it took six months and two weeks, the amendment would require the entire rigmarole set out in clauses 20 and 21 to be gone through again. 
 Intervention is meant to be sharply focused, with clear time limits and exit strategies, so that local authorities can, as we all want them to, carry out their network management duty by themselves, on their own terms and in their own fashion, with no intervention from central Government. I do not see what would be achieved by going through the whole process set out in clauses 20 and 21 every six months. That would go against the grain of quick, light-touch intervention.

John Thurso: Perhaps I can help the Minister. I think that he said that each order would specify the duration of the intervention. If so, I happily agree that the amendment is otiose, and we need discuss it no further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Monitoring and reporting

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Intervention in activities of

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Exercise of local traffic authority functions

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Application of sections 20 to 25 to local traffic authorities exercising functions jointly

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Criteria for making intervention orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Consultation—
'Prior to the issuing of intervention notices or orders, the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as he considers appropriate over the content and timing of such orders and notices and over the criteria against which the performance of a local authority may be assessed.'.

Christopher Chope: Why will the Minister not produce his performance indicators sooner than the time that he told us, the end of the year? He must recognise that the performance of many highway and traffic authorities is far below the standard that we would wish; surely something can be done sooner than the end of the year to chivvy that along. I do not want to go back over the debate about a particular local authority, namely Northamptonshire, but I ask the Minister whether he is content to allow that authority to carry on as it is until the performance indicators are produced. If the Government are serious about reducing congestion and improving traffic flows, they should introduce their performance indicators sooner than the end of the year.

Tony McNulty: We are not publishing that approach until the end of the year at the latest because we want the current performance criteria to be as robust as possible. That involves a great deal of input not only from the Committee, but more importantly from a range of stakeholders, not least the Local Government Association and other local government organisations. We regard that input as vital given that they will be the recipients of any measures that follow failure of such performance criteria.
 It is touching that the hon. Gentleman has such an almost childlike, magical view of legislation, as though there will be no network or traffic management until the Bill is passed, but the world is not like that. A number of things are going on in local government and in Government to improve matters, not least, as I have alluded to before, work on local transport plans. Those plans are being assessed against performance, and this year, thanks to the £1.9 billion of funding that I announced just before Christmas, significantly more elements of performance measurement, reward for good performance and improvement are being dealt with. 
 A host of other interventions—some public, some private—are going on as we speak in highway authorities throughout the country. It is right to discuss the broad criteria in greater detail in order to come up with criteria for performance assessment that local government agrees to from the beginning, rather than simply imposing them from the centre, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like.

Brian White: A number of organisations, such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, will have a view on some of the detailed guidance. Will the Minister ensure that their views are actually input into his discussions?

Tony McNulty: As I will be party to those matters as they unfold, I shall undertake to meet PACT and any other group to hear their views, above and beyond how we have heard their views thus far through people putting their views to us in debate or by means of amendments, in order to take those matters further. I would not just do that in the context of the network management duty or other elements of the Bill, but in the context of my role as the local transport Minister. I would be more than happy to do that. That is not a universal invitation to every single organisation that might have the word transport in its name, or in brackets after its name, but I will happily talk to serious organisations with serious considerations, such as PACT, in relation to the Bill, or their wider concerns.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Guidance to traffic directors

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in
page 12, line 22, at end add— 
 '(4A) Such guidance shall reflect the need to ensure that a traffic director improves the level of safety on the roads for which he becomes responsible'.

John Thurso: I shall not detain the Committee for long on the amendment, which reflects a debate we have had several times over on the need to consider safety at various levels. I am not sure I want to add anything to the debate, and I am fairly sure that the Minister has nothing to add. I see that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is nodding in agreement with that.

Tony McNulty: In this guidance, as in other guidance elsewhere in the Bill, all the elements, including local transport, regional transport, safety and environment, are germane to any powers afforded to the traffic director, as they are to the traffic manager, as they underpin the network management duty. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Thurso: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Traffic directors in London

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in
page 12, line 28, leave out from 'director' to end of line 30 and add 
 'must have regard to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy prescribed in section 142 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29)'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 120, in 
page 12, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
 No. 121, in 
page 12, line 35, at end add— 
 '(5A) In carrying out his duties the traffic director must have regard to the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy prescribed in section 142 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29).'.

John Thurso: The purpose of these three amendments is to test the Government's thinking in regard to the relationship that a traffic director, once appointed, would have with the Mayor of London. The Greater London area is, for the moment, unique, in that it has an elected Mayor.

John Redwood: Hartlepool has a monkey; it is very good.

John Thurso: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of Hartlepool, although London was devolved through the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and has a mayor through that, which is slightly different to the position regarding the directly elected mayors in other areas.
 I want to find out whether it is right that, were a traffic director to be appointed in one borough, or one area, or under one authority in London, the powers of that traffic director should exceed those that rest with Transport for London and go above the Mayor's strategy. So we have a devolved settlement and a Mayor, but we could have a traffic director in one borough who, through his powers, may be over and above the overall strategy for London being put forward by the Mayor at that time. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the rationale behind that, and whether it is appropriate.

Tony McNulty: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all traffic managers and traffic directors within all London boroughs will have to give due cognisance
 to the strategies laid out by the Mayor. That is the norm that prevails and will prevail with regard to London boroughs seeking to do their network management duty. However, when we come to intervention we need at least the back stop—a very long back stop, as I have explained already—of the traffic director focusing on the recovery and remedy needed for that particular borough. That may conflict with some directions from the Mayor under some of that office's powers, although I suspect that in most instances it will not, because we do not want to compromise the effectiveness of the traffic director when they are imposed in the last instance. Transport for London are fully aware that, in the context of all these elements, boroughs are obliged to have regard to the Mayor's transport strategy, associated guidance, and direction. Intervention powers give the Secretary of State scope to override such guidance in directions that it considers appropriate. It prays those elements in aid in the letter that it sent to officials to say that it is fully behind the Bill. However, if those elements are to prevail—this harks back to the debate on clause 20 or 21, or whichever clause it was, where people tried to remove the references to the Mayor—it needs that information to be part and parcel of the overall operation.
 This is not about unpicking the local government devolution settlement. It is about enhancing the roles at all three levels—centre, strategy, and local—so that the interaction between them that is envisaged in the Bill works. It is done with TFL's indulgence.

John Thurso: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Recovery of costs from local traffic authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: As the Minister knows, we are very much against this whole part of the Bill. Why go through a process of enabling costs to be recovered from the local authority when it receives so much largesse from the Department for Transport in the first place? Would it not be better not to give the local authority so much money in the future?

John Redwood: I rise to explain to those watching our proceedings why my colleagues and I have voted against clause after clause. It is because these clauses are particularly centralising and we have not been satisfied that the balance is right. I accept that there is a duty on the Government, which is being strengthened by this proposed legislation, to ensure good governance in local authorities—specifically, in this case, to encourage better traffic management. That is an aim that I willingly endorse. However, Conservative Committee members want to make the point that we think the balance has gone too far.
 It is visible in clause 30 that whatever cost the national centre decides to incur must be levied on the local authority, even though the national costs may be higher than the realistic costs for that locality and even though that may mess up the budgets for that local authority for the year or years in question. 
 The issue of local authority finance is always hard fought between Government and local government. The battle can be quite tough, even when local and national government are of similar parties; it is always stronger when there is a party element. My point is not party political; it is that endless arguments over money are inherent in the nature of the relationship between local and central government—whomever the Government are. 
 It is worrying for local government that the central Government are seeking to take a power that in certain circumstances removes from local government's control an element of its budget. That comes in a year where there might be tight budgeting anyway because of the nature of the local authority settlement. The Minister urges us to accept that these necessary powers will be little-used reserve powers, but I remember that when I was Minister for Local Government, there was an in-built tendency in the world of quangos and central officials always to urge Ministers to use or retain powers, even when those Ministers wished to give powers back, as I did. I had many arguments over urban development corporations' powers: I always wanted to give back areas from UDCs to elected local government, and when we considered taking new areas under control, I wanted them to be areas with no resident population, just derelict land. I found it easier to justify that to myself than taking over areas with large numbers of people, who would normally look to an elected body. 
 In the quango world, there was an in-built resistance among officials to my view that, wherever possible, things should be returned to democratic control, not taken away. I worry that, under well-intentioned and less well-intentioned Ministers, a similar in-built tendency to use central powers too often will be in the central machine. It is particularly worrying if that central power will be allied with the right to charge anything on to local authorities, whatever their budget circumstances and wherever we might be in the budget year. That would be difficult for local authorities because most of their money comes from the centre, and I doubt that there will be a proportionate increase in the central vote for the relevant local authorities, to take into account the 
 possibility that the traffic intervention costs more than the local authorities spend on traffic management. I accept that only local authorities that the Government think are managing traffic badly will be affected, but such authorities will have difficulties if the Government impose on them an extra cost, which may be in excess of their budgets for that year, without making any alternative arrangement. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put forward the attractive idea that the budget should be adjusted in some way, and that a fair view should be taken of the financial situation, which will have been changed by central Government's intervention in a budgetary year. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that potential financial problem.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt that the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Christchurch and the right hon. Member for Wokingham, are sincere. They would trouble me, too, were it not for the fact that in clause 30(2), the word ''may'' is used. When an intervention order is made, it is absolutely discretionary whether, from thereon, all the administrative and other costs of the traffic director and of intervention, are borne by the relevant local authority. That is not an obligation. The national authority might decide not to recover the costs from the local authority, and to bear the cost itself. It may well be that the financial state of the relevant local authority is such that to persevere in trying to recover those costs from it would decrease its capability to recover from its parlous position in terms of the traffic management network duty, rather than enhance its ability to overcome those difficulties. That is the degree of flexibility.
 If the money is to come from the centre, it is a matter for debate for the national authority whether it should come from the local transport plan process, the standard spending assessment process, or elsewhere, although hon. Members will know that a goodly deal of the Department for Transport's money that goes to local authorities is in capital rather than revenue. That will have to be borne in mind. That should allay the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen's fears about flexibility in the recovery of traffic director costs after an intervention order has been served. There is flexibility: it will not be simply an imposition at local level when a traffic director is appointed. I commend clause 30 to the Committee. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Interpretation of Part 2

John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in
page 13, line 29, at end insert— 
 ' ''car club'' means an organisation whose aims include the reduction of traffic congestion, trading to provide vehicles to its members at an hourly rate for their occasional use.'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14A—Provision of parking spaces for car clubs—
'(1) It is the duty of a local traffic authority to make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to facilitate the operation of car clubs in order to secure the reduction of road congestion. 
 (2) A local traffic authority shall require every organisation seeking to operate as a car club to register their constitution, rules and membership numbers and may at their discretion approve such an organisation as a registered car club. 
 (3) The arrangements in subsection (1) shall include the provision of parking spaces for which they do not make a charge for the sole use of registered car clubs.'.

John Thurso: Amendment No. 127 would include the definition of a car club in the list of definitions, and new clause 14A would provide authorities with the power to take into account the needs of car clubs. Car clubs are a relatively new concept, and they are growing apace in Europe and the United States. Members get rid of their car to join a club and research suggests that about 1.5 per cent. of drivers will become car club members and that membership reduces the number of miles they do by car by between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent.
 For each car club in existence about four to 10 privately owned cars are removed from the streets, easing the pressure on parking. Members increase their use of public transport and that helps to alleviate social exclusion. There are many arguments in favour of car clubs. I do not intend to make them now; I simply wish to point out that, if they were introduced in this country, they would require legislation.

Tony McNulty: I have a lot of sympathy with the notion of car clubs, of pooling cars and of all sorts of other ways of getting everything but drivers driving on their own round our towns, cities and countryside—especially to and from work. I am not entirely sure of the legality—legality is the wrong word, but it will do at this hour—of simply throwing a definition into a list of definitions that refers to everything in the clause. The clause is a glossary for part 2, and I am not sure that throwing in a definition of car clubs would define a statutory duty. That is by the by, but it seems inappropriate.
 Local authorities can already deal with most of the subsequent provisions in new clause 14A, because they have the power to designate parking spaces on highways through sections 32 and 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Such spaces may be provided for a particular class of vehicle—for example, residents' parking bays. I do not believe that there is any difficulty in using the 1984 Act to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants through the new clause.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross may not be aware that the Minister's departmental predecessor helped to
 promote car clubs in a very positive way. Curiously enough, they are supported not only by people living in communities where there are problems, but by the vehicle industry.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not know whether he is referring to a club in the north-west, but I was going more appropriately to cite one in Edinburgh; appropriate not only because the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross moved the amendment, but because of the right hon. Member who happens to be the MP for Edinburgh, Central. We are supporting a car plus car club advisory service in Edinburgh with a £60,000 per annum grant. Given that those powers exist in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, it is for local authorities, in the context of devolution mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, to determine whether they want to designate parking bays in such a fashion and whether they want—through their local transport plan submissions—to facilitate such schemes on the roads, through parking or otherwise. As I say, I have sympathy with the schemes but it is not for central Government to impose on local government such powers, not least when they already exist, should the local authority want to use them. In the spirit of fully supporting the sentiment of the amendments, but not their position, whether that is cheeky or otherwise, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I will not attempt to repeat the onomatopoeic name of the car club that he came up with in Edinburgh, as that is a long way south of my constituency. I am grateful for his explanation. Those who brought the matter to my attention had felt that there might be need for legislation. I was looking for a convenient peg on which to hang a small debate. We have had the small debate. The peg was clearly not the right one, but it served its purpose.
 I ask only that if anybody who is interested in promoting car clubs approaches the Minister's Department for help, it will be kind enough to afford them whatever help they need. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would do that anyway. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Meaning of ''permit scheme''

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in
page 14, line 5, after second 'specified', insert 'traffic-sensitive'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 185, in 
page 14, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
 No. 168, in 
clause 38, page 17, line 35, at end insert— 
 ' ''Traffic-sensitive street'' has the meaning given by section 64 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.'.

Christopher Chope: This is a completely different subject: permit schemes. Following their consultation, the Government have come up with an interesting concept. Those people who will end up operating the permit schemes have a number of concerns about the proposals.
 One of those concerns is reflected in amendment No. 167, which would avoid delaying work and increasing red tape in areas that are not prone to significant levels of traffic, thus enabling the focus to be on managing those areas where congestion is greatest. The amendment would also alleviate fears that the permit system is about generating revenue for local authorities rather than about improving co-ordination. There is an important precedent. Clause 64(2)(a) in part 3 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 refers to traffic-sensitive areas, so the provisions apply only to areas where traffic is a sensitive issue. It is of some surprise to people that the Government have not included a restriction to the application of permit schemes to traffic-sensitive streets in the same way as under the 1991 Act. Much of the work undertaken by the utilities is in urban streets and is of short duration and high volume, thereby creating little congestion. Permit schemes could have the greatest effect on reducing congestion by focusing on streets where traffic is at its greatest. The danger of permit schemes being all embracing is that local authorities would drown in a volume of permit applications, unless they increased their resources considerably, and they might mismanage instances where congestion is severe. There is also the question of how quickly people could obtain permits. One of the greatest concerns that many people have when dealing with local authorities is the time that it takes to receive an answer to a question. A scheme will not be effective if it is too complicated and too bound up with red tape. That is why I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 185 would remove the definition specified in the clause. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will speak to that amendment also, but the key point is to try to ensure that any permit scheme is restricted to the areas in which it will provide some benefit.

David Wilshire: I shall speak to amendment No. 185. In debates of this sort, the Minister, and other Ministers, has told me that my amendments are
 unnecessary, repetitive, and otiose or whatever else he wants to call it. However, I have never managed to achieve the heights of unnecessary verbiage that I find in subsection (3), which states:
''In this section ''specified'' means specified''.
 Golly gosh! Really? How exciting. It goes on: 
''or of a description specified''.
 Even more golly gosh. What on earth are we doing by saying, ''In this Act, a word we use means the word we use.''? It is barmy beyond belief. 
Mr. McNulty rose—

John Redwood: Get out of that one!

Tony McNulty: Far be it for me, as hon. Members have probably discerned today, to jump to the defence of lawyers or the gobbledegook that we sometimes have to deal with. However, the subsection makes sense if it is read properly, so I shall jump to the lawyers' defence and resist amendment No. 185. The commas do it all, so the subsection can be read as,
''In this section ''specified'' means specified . . . in a permit scheme'',
 or, 
''In this section ''specified'' means . . . a description specified in a permit scheme.''
 That makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps I am turning into a lawyer because I have sat on too many Committees. The alternative would be to have to say, ''specified in a permit scheme'' again and again whenever parts 1 and 2 said ''specified''. It is clumsy, I grant you. At best, I cheerfully accept that it is middle English, or Germanic grammar rather than English grammar, but it makes sense once one reads the whole subsection.

John Redwood: We then have doubling and trebling and not only tautology, but tripology, or whatever. The main part of subsection (2) is governed by a permit scheme. We are then reinserting ''permit scheme'' in the subsection where it is already.

Tony McNulty: I will not labour the point. The right hon. Gentleman can collar one of those lawyers afterwards. I have defended their honour, and at 10 to 5 on a Thursday afternoon, I am going no further. I do, however, take his point, in part at the very least.
 I take the point about traffic-sensitive streets, as outlined in section 64B in the previous Act. That is a reasonable place to start. I would also throw into the pot the fact that, throughout the Bill, we are trying to start from as many perspectives as we possibly can, allowing, through this and subsequent sections, specificity at the local level. That is troublesome, rather like last year's experience with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003; it was a Christmas tree Bill, with lots of general outlines, but not much substance, which came thereafter in the hanging baubles of guidance or regulation. I am loth to accept the amendments, because, as undertaken, I would far rather consult more with local authorities, see what comes out of some of the pilots, talk to the utilities; I want to get the more detailed definitions by getting the regulations right. That may or may not accord with section 64A(2)(a) of the Act. I would far 
 rather that we set out the basic principles of what a permit scheme should be, but then got to that level of detail in regulations, where it would matter substantively for those who will be most directly involved. That is why, although the amendments are well intentioned and may well be where we end up, I would ask that they be withdrawn. 
 The point of law—which I do not want to labour—is that traffic-sensitive, as outlined in the 1991 Act, means the relationship between the utilities and local authorities, the notice given and a range of other things. I do not want to create the illusion that that is what I am saying. I want to get to a stage where we have clearly defined, substantive regulations on the basis of that round of consultation with local authorities, the utilities and others most directly involved. The clause as it stands is merely about defining—ill-defining, perhaps—the permit scheme, rather than that level of detail. I would ask to leave that detail to regulation, and that the amendments be withdrawn.

Christopher Chope: If we were talking about tens of thousands of incidents each year, I might accept what the Minister says, but we know from his regulatory impact assessment that in the last year for which figures are available there were no fewer than 1.1 million individual street works. The idea that we are going to establish a permit scheme for 1.1 million permit applications per year is totally ludicrous. It would be better to put some sensible restriction into the primary legislation. The individual street works carried out in what are currently described as traffic-sensitive streets are far fewer than 1.1 million. If we are not sensible, local government is going to be bound up in its own red tape and bureaucracy. I am not prepared to accept that it is reasonable for the Government to go ahead with a blank cheque to impose permit schemes on each of 1.1 million individual sets of street works as proposed.

Tony McNulty: I know that I should not, at nearly 5 o'clock on a Thursday, but the hon. Gentleman's obtuseness provokes me. We are not imposing permit schemes on anybody. We are defining clearly under law what a permit scheme is and the rest of the section goes on to define how a permit scheme can be applied for. To say that 1.1 million incursions into the roads are now going to be under some national permit scheme is daft in the extreme, even daft for the hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. Wilshire rose—

Tony McNulty: I am berating the hon. Member for Christchurch; I do not want to have to berate the hon. Member for Spelthorne as well.

David Wilshire: I shall try not to berate the Minister either, but I thought I heard him say that they are not trying to impose a permit scheme on anybody. Clause 33(2) says:
''The appropriate national authority may direct a local highway authority, or two or more such authorities acting together, to prepare and submit to him a permit scheme''.
 Is that not forcing a permit scheme on to people?

Tony McNulty: I shall berate the hon. Gentleman. Quite how he, in his obtuseness and vacuity, reads into
 that a universal imposition of a permit scheme, I know not. That clause is there precisely for the reasons we suggested earlier, which had broad agreement; there will be occasions when two local authorities abut and where it is more appropriate for there to be one permit scheme shared by the two of them for the efficacy of the roadworks in that area.
Mr. Wilshire rose—

Tony McNulty: For the last time.

David Wilshire: The Minister should read his own Bill. He said that it would be sensible for two or more authorities to do something together, and that I am being obtuse. If clause 33(1) states that a local authority, or two or more such authorities acting together, may prepare—

Tony McNulty: May.

David Wilshire: That is the point about which the Minister says that I am being obtuse; that two authorities may act together if they wish. The point that I made was that he then takes powers to order them to do so if they will not.

Tony McNulty: Clause 33(1) says that they may do so, and 33(2) says that there may be circumstances in which we feel that two local authorities should do so and that we may impose that. I do not know where, in all that, there is a Stalinist, universal, national scheme being imposed on anyone.
 It was in that context that I objected to what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. The serious point that underpins our resistance to the amendments is that we do not think it appropriate to include that level of detail in the Bill, not least because of—without wishing to bore people again—undue specificity. Moreover, we have not consulted in any detail those who will be most affected by the regulations; the local authorities and the utilities. Our opinion is that the level of detail needed should be included in the regulations rather than in the Bill. The definition of traffic-sensitive streets may be appropriate for some areas and not others. It would be appropriate to include that level of detail in the Bill, if we were doing that of which the hon. Gentleman accused us; universally imposing a permit scheme. However, we are not doing that, so it is not appropriate, and he is wrong. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:–
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Brian White: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in
page 14, line 15, leave out subsection (c) and insert— 
 '(c) as to cases in which emergency, minor and specified works may be carried out without a permit.'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 34, in
page 14, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(2A) No permit shall be required for, or in connection with, any works which are required by reason of an emergency.'.

Brian White: I suspect that, in a moment, I shall be attacked for undue specificity. However, if I make the case, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it.
 I appreciate that the Minister says that permit schemes will not apply all over the place and that there will be the kind of common sense that he expects. However, some fears have been expressed by the utilities and by people who will use the permit schemes. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to allay those fears. 
 Many emergency works take place. There are more than 1 million gas leaks every year, and flooding often occurs when emergency work is removing an obstruction. In such emergency works, the delay in being part of a permit scheme would be unacceptable. I am sure that that will be covered in the guidance and in the negotiations, but it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the matter. 
 Many minor works occur, but cause minimum disruption. They tend to be in areas that do not cause the maximum disruption to road users, on the verges and of limited duration, so they tend not to impede the flow of traffic. They are far more numerous than the major infrastructure works that cause many of the problems. 
 The genesis of the amendment was the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which defined such works. I appreciate that the Opposition have an amendment on the subject, but it goes wider than what I suggest; indeed, it may be too broad. If the permit schemes are to concentrate on the better control and co-ordination of projects, removing minor works and emergency works will be a major step forward. 
 Broadband connection is one of my key concerns. The broadband cable network has generally been installed, so the major infrastructure works are complete. However, many of the connections from roads to properties have not yet been made. Such works are of a minor nature and tend not to hold up traffic on major roads, but they are done in response to customer demand, and the companies often have to respond quickly. Having to subject such works to a permit scheme will cause problems in other parts of the economy. 
 A large part of the Bill is about improving the economy by removing congestion, as it results in costs for industry. I would be concerned if the inadvertent consequence of a permit scheme was that it stopped smaller companies responding to that demand by allowing the bigger players like BT, which could afford the time—although they may dispute the fact—to take a bigger part of the market. I am concerned about 
 competitiveness, and I hope that the Minister will address the concerns of the marketplace. 
 I hope that the Minister will not do what the Minister of State, Department for Transport did when he was the Minister debating the Communications Act 2003; he accepted a Conservative amendment and then gave me grief. I am sure that he will not do that.

Andrew Miller: I want briefly to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend. I remind the Minister of the exchange earlier this month between the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and the Secretary of State for Transport in which the hon. Gentleman asked a question on that precise subject. The Secretary of State replied:
''The hon. Gentleman is right that that is an essential part of the United Kingdom economy and we want to encourage it.''—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 42.]
 We need a practical mechanism that distinguishes between short-term slit trenches, which might be there for a couple of hours, and major roadworks that may require a whole road to be dug up—perhaps to replace a sewer. Getting the balance right is difficult. We do not want an overly bureaucratic system, as it could create the competitive disadvantages mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. 
 I know that the Minister has received representations from the technology companies, who recognise the need for such a mechanism and know that they must take part in the process. However, the general plea is that it should not affect the country's competitive interests. I realise that the Minister has a difficult balancing act to perform, but it is important that he puts his thoughts on that point on the record.

Christopher Chope: We have had two excellent contributions to the debate. In supporting what has been said, I also commend to the Minister my amendment No. 34, which addresses the same point. Emergency works will need to be carried out for the foreseeable future, particularly given the state both of our water infrastructure, which will take years to get right, and of our gas infrastructure—people are talking about another 25 years before that is sorted out. Given that, there are going to be many emergencies. Action needs to be taken straight away in an emergency, so why cannot the Government say in primary legislation that permit schemes will not be required for, or in connection with, works that are required because of an emergency? That is what amendment No. 34 asks for.
 I hope that the Minister will recognise my proposal as a way of restricting the ambit of permit schemes and gaining the confidence of those who deal with the permit regime. Entrepreneurs and the utility companies greatly suspect and fear that, as a result of the Government's proposals, they will be burdened with an enormous amount of additional bureaucracy, which will be damaging to them and the UK economy.

Tony McNulty: The best way to ensure the confidence of those who are most directly involved, whether they be from local government or the utilities, is to consult them and thrash out exactly what the definitions will be in regulations. It is terribly easy to
 ask, ''What is a minor work?'', but it is enormously difficult to answer that. A minor work on a little side road, even in the middle of the street, may be fairly non-disruptive; yet a minor work in the middle of Victoria street may be minor by any definition of size, but will cause God knows what sort of disruption. I fear that the same may be true of ''emergency''. What is an emergency? Where does the definition start and stop?
 The Bill says clearly that there is scope to define in the permit scheme what specified works will not require permits. Although that is broad, it is the hook on which we, along with the utilities and local government, will hang definitions of minor works and emergency works. That is a far more appropriate, confidence-building approach than seeking to include things in the Bill in an overly specific fashion—I was going to say ''anally retentive fashion'', but I should not say that. Things do not have a greater import just because they are included in the Bill. It is the hook in the Bill, rather than a certain level of detail, that will give the regulations their teeth. 
 I take the importance of broadband and other infrastructural connections to our economy as seriously as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did on 5 January. We are not putting obstacles and traps in the way of people going about their lawful business. Much of this work is what the utilities already do, and many of the powers are those that local councils already have. The provisions draw together the powers relating to permit schemes, and those that will apply to street works, and put some co-ordination and liaison into the equation. The notion that the nasty Government are wielding a big stick, and trammelling contractors and the utilities with one arm behind their backs so that they cannot get on with their work, is absolute and abject nonsense. The proposals are designed to allow everyone who needs to get at or under the roads to do so more efficiently than prevailing conditions allow, even though the relevant provisions can be found in many existing laws. 
 The key point is that whether we are talking about an emergency, minor works or, as was mentioned, traffic-sensitive streets, the specifics are better fleshed out in detail through regulations. That is best done with the very people in local government and the utilities who are directly involved, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, rather than in Committee, no matter how glorious our collective expertise. In that spirit I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Brian White: The Minister mentioned utilities, but he did not mention the telcos. Given their interest, would they be included in his consultation?

Tony McNulty: We shall seek to involve those who are or will be most directly involved in street works, permit schemes and utilising services underneath our streets. I use ''utilities'' as a shorthand term, which of course includes telecommunications, broadband, and so on.

Brian White: On the basis of the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: May I take this opportunity to put one question to the Minister? In the debate on amendment No. 167, he said that a permit scheme could be the subject of an experiment. Does he have it mind for the permit scheme to be piloted before it is introduced nationally? It is clear from the regulatory impact assessment how empty the scheme is of detail. On the basis that we have had a pilot on the lane rental proposals, and the studies have produced interesting and perhaps unexpected results, does the Minister agree that it would be better to pilot such a permit regime in particular areas rather than draw up a scheme for a national roll out?

Tony McNulty: Let me turn that round, because we are not drawing up a scheme for national roll out. We are providing permissive powers to allow local authorities to apply for permit schemes should they want to. The Bill is not providing for a universal roll out or a centrally imposed scheme, as the hon. Gentleman suggested 10 minutes ago. Will we encourage authorities to work actively with the first one or two authorities that implement such a scheme to see how it can work? I suspect that the answer is yes, but not in the context of a national pilot or centrally imposed scheme. The hon. Gentleman should unpick his ideology, his objections to the Labour Government and what he thinks we will do from what is in the Bill and what we are actually going to do.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Preparation of permit schemes

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in
page 14, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
 The amendment would remove the ability of the national authority to require a local authority to have a permit scheme. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne quickly seized on when the Minister indicated earlier that he had no intention of imposing permit schemes. If he has no such intention, there is no need to have the provision in subsection (2). I hope that he will agree to the amendment.

Brian White: The fact that the Whip has moved our business forward quickly means that several of my amendments will not be discussed, but I want to make one point in opposition to the hon. Member for Christchurch.
 We must consider the business constraints of operators, who do not want problems with different local authorities having different permit schemes. The Minister's ability to bring such authorities together is critical. However, will he assure me that, if that power is used, any Minister will consider the issues of authorities that cross regional boundaries and ensure that regional transport plans cover them? For authorities such as my own, which borders on three regions, that is an issue.

Tony McNulty: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I see the transport directors of the Government offices for the regions on a monthly basis, and I have made that point to them, as issues of infrastructure and other traffic matters do not stop at regional boundaries.
 The hon. Member for Christchurch, when not in ideological mode, is in amnesiac mode. I did not talk about anything other than the charge, which was the imposition of a national, universal permit scheme. In some instances it is appropriate for a permit scheme to be imposed, in the last resort, on two adjoining highway authorities. That is why it is in the Bill, however quickly and sharply it was alighted on by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. That applies in the cross-regional example and in conurbations and, at the risk of sounding London-centric, it would be worth considering it for adjoining London boroughs, where there is clearly a case for the scheme to traverse the two boroughs rather than just one—but only in the last resort. We therefore think that the reserve power is appropriate, and I urge my colleagues to resist the amendment.

Christopher Chope: In light of the Minister's explanation, and to try to re-establish some good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in
page 14, line 41, at end add— 
 '(6) The Secretary of State shall consult, and take account of the views of all affected parties or their representatives when preparing or considering permit schemes.'.
 I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. It is about consultation, and he has already told us that he thinks it much more important to consult with local authorities, utility companies and others than with members of this Committee. If he believes that, I hope that he will accept this. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any permit scheme is practical and balances the need to minimise congestion with the need to provide essential utility services. It would iron out possible areas of concern or confusion so as to minimise the risk of disputes, enabling everybody to focus on minimising congestion, which is what we are all about. It is obvious that everybody has to work together for the new system to be effective, and the Government have said that they are willing to consult on permit schemes. However, it would be helpful to those who are going to have to operate under the regime to know what the Minister thinks about consultation. 
 Because the scope of the Bill provides for permit schemes to limit the timing and location of works, utilities are concerned that they could be told where to place apparatus in the street, which would impact on their costs and provision of services to customers. The provision for permit schemes to dictate the timing of works—date of commencement, duration and hours of the day when they can take place—would have a significant effect on their costs. Overnight working substantially increases costs, including subcontractor 
 charges, and may lead to subcontractors saying that they do not want to be involved in the work. That is especially likely in the parts of the country in which there is a bit of a building boom, including London. 
 A host of important issues is involved, and I hope that the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment specifying the need for consultation.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Member for Christchurch makes entirely reasonable points and it is an entirely reasonable amendment, but I am not going to accept it.
 I agree that those who are likely to be affected by permit schemes should have an opportunity to comment on the proposals. We shall, therefore, consult with local authorities, utilities, including telcos, and a wide range of other bodies on draft regulations and guidance in the wake of the Bill. However, to consult further on every single permit scheme that comes to the Secretary of State for approval—there will have been a good deal of consultation by that stage—would be otiose and bureaucratic. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake to ask the group that we have set up to enable utility, local authority and other representatives to look at the regulation of guidance to consider how consultation should be undertaken locally as part of the overall regulation and guidance for the Bill. That is a far more appropriate way of ensuring that there is guidance for local consultation than imposing a duty on the Secretary of State in respect of every scheme.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister. Does that mean that he will report back to Committee members before Report, so that we can consider whether we need to table any amendments on Report?

Tony McNulty: I cannot promise that I will do that before Report as this matter has only just unfolded, but I will do so as soon as I can, and certainly before the Bill has been considered by both Houses. However, I hope that there will at least be a draft or some early emerging thoughts from the working party on regulations and guidance between now and the Bill's consideration in another place.

Christopher Chope: In light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Implementation etc of local highway authority permit schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Is there a power in this clause for the Secretary of State to refuse a scheme? It appears that he can approve, revoke or modify, but that he cannot refuse one—or is it implicit that he can?

Tony McNulty: Unless I am told otherwise while I am on my toes or subsequently during the remainder of our deliberations, I would say that that is implicit.
 I agree that it appears that schemes can be either modified or revoked, and that if they are revoked that 
 implies that they must have been approved in the first place. However, subsection (4) allows us to turn down an application to run a scheme: 
''The scheme shall not have effect unless the authority by order gives effect to it.''
 Therefore, the answer to the question is yes. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Permit regulations

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
page 16, line 20, leave out subparagraph (d).

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 166, in
page 16, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(f) for any disputes as the interpretation or implementation of a permit scheme to be settled— 
 (i) by arbitration; or 
 (ii) by a person designated by the Secretary of State on appeal by the undertaker.'.

Christopher Chope: The amendment addresses a serious issue. It would remove the power to make it a criminal offence by regulations to carry out works without a permit or in breach of permit conditions. It is bad enough to introduce that as a criminal offence, but if that is going to be done it should be done in a Bill rather than by some regulation-making power.
 The Minister was involved in the deliberations last year on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, so he will know that no criminal regime operates against people who obtain planning permission and are then in breach of conditions attached to it, or against people who develop land without planning permission when they should have had such permission. Why do the Government think it right to make it a criminal offence to carry out works without a permit or in breach of conditions? That is oppressive, and it is disproportionate compared with what happens in other areas of law enforcement. 
 Amendment No. 166 would add a provision that allows disputes to be settled by arbitration. The Bill would lead to a situation in which the highways authorities were giving out permits while also being responsible for half of the street works. An independent appeals mechanism is surely essential to ensure that disputes are resolved in a fair, consistent, even-handed and timely manner. There is provision in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for dealing with arbitration. The Government have given no explanation of why they do not feel that there should be an arbitration provision in the Bill. Surely it would be a sensible safeguard. Many utilities and local authorities work closely together, but not all of them do. 
 The national joint utilities group is concerned that some local authorities could seek to maximise the revenue-generating opportunities available in the exercise of permit schemes. They could dispute utilities activities even when it was unreasonable to 
 do so. That is why the group wants an independent appeals mechanism. It wants someone to go to: someone who will enable the issues to be resolved even-handedly, thus minimising the need for costly disputes. That would enable the focus to be on reducing congestion, rather than increasing contention.

Tony McNulty: I do not want the Committee to run away with the notion that the Bill introduces criminality and criminal offences in this area. Much of the clause, not least the paragraph that the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete, is about raising the level of fine for criminal offences, as indicated in schedule 1. That relates back to a range of summary offences in the 1991 Act. We are simply setting out what level of fine—say level 4 or 5, up from level 3—is appropriate. We are not introducing new offences in that respect. If Members look at schedule 1, they will see that it relates to various sections—section 51 all the way through to sections 79, 80, 83 and 92—of the earlier Act. Clearly, there will be some new offences in relation to permits, but the roots of those are in the earlier Act.
 The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these are important matters, but they should be dealt with in far more detail in the regulations. I understand where he is coming from, but the Bill is not about introducing permit schemes as a revenue-raising exercise. We can rehearse that debate for ever, if he wants, but it is 28 minutes past 5, and if we did that, it would make the pair of us even more unpopular with everyone else in the Room than we are already. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is waving at me, or signalling that he is about to cut his throat—or my throat—but I get the gist. 
 Although the matters that have been raised are important, the clause deals principally with the increase in penalties for summary offences. Of course, new offences are an element of the clause, because the permits are a new scheme. However, matters of substance should be determined in the regulations—that is what the clause is all about—rather than in the Bill. I take the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch seriously. I am thinking not least of his point about arbitration. If he will allow me, I will consider that issue and see whether we can incorporate some allusion to it in subsequent deliberations. 
 The permit schemes need some teeth when it comes to offences, which is why we have raised some of the levels and introduced some new offences. I ask that the clause remain intact. It covers an important part of the discretionary permit scheme that authorities might want to introduce.

Christopher Chope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in
page 16, line 26, leave out subsection (5).

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 169, in
page 16, line 33, at end insert 
 'but any fee set under this subsection shall represent the administrative cost of running the scheme and any fee above that amount shall be repaid.'.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry if there is any impatience among members of the Committee. However, we owe it to the people with an interest in such issues to consider the points of concern—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East agrees with me—although it might be more convenient for us to leave now.
 I want to address amendment No. 169 in particular, which would limit the fee to the administrative cost. The Minister has said that it is not the Government's purpose to allow local authorities to use the fee as a revenue-raising measure. One sure way to prevent that would be to limit the cost of the permits to the administrative cost. That would also alleviate fears, notwithstanding the Minister's expressions otherwise, that some local authorities have it in mind to use a permit scheme to raise revenue. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept amendment No. 169, because it would serve both his purpose and ours.

David Wilshire: I am conscious of the time; otherwise, I would try to deliver a lengthy speech about stealth tax; this could easily be such a tax.

Tony McNulty: Go on.

David Wilshire: If the Minister wants me to, dawn may rise.

Gillian Merron: He does not.

David Wilshire: It seems that it might not be necessary on this occasion, in light of what the Minister has said. The Minister, being a reasonable man, has developed a guilty conscience about stealth taxes and has said that the fee is not intended to be one, although there have been 60-odd and will probably be more before we get rid of this Government.
 We and the public need to be reassured that the fee is not meant to be a stealth tax, because the track record is pretty gruesome. It would be better to accept amendment No. 169 than my amendment, which deletes the whole subsection. That would put it beyond all doubt that the measure is not meant to be a revenue-raising exercise. If the amendment is not accepted, I will enter into a little bet with the Minister that it will not be long before certain authorities—probably those that are Labour-controlled—use the measure as a means of raising revenue. All that will happen is that people who have a good reason to repair things and to dig up the roads will receive a substantial additional cost, which will be passed on to the consumer and the receiver of the service. The last thing that people who already find it difficult to pay electricity, telephone and gas bills want is an extra charge. It will be yet another tax that the Government will try to pretend is not a tax.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I think was an implicit withdrawal of amendment No. 37 while we concentrate on amendment No. 169.
 My difficulty with amendment No. 169 is that it is clumsy. I do not know how we would define administrative cost or the point at which such costs were met. I do not know how we would explain to new applicants that it would cost nothing for them because our costs have been met. How would that sit with those who have already paid, and who effectively paid the cost in the first place? 
 I will happily take the hon. Gentleman's bet, without any presumption about securing Royal Assent as we will have to wait and see whether the Bill becomes an Act—

David Wilshire: Are there any doubts about that?

Tony McNulty: I do not think so. It is brewing, I am told.
 We must ensure that there is sufficient ability to charge for the permits to pay for the scheme. However, it is not meant to be, and I do not think that it will be, a revenue-making scam, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The amendment is clumsily written and will not achieve its aim. There would have to be some laborious bureaucracy in place to achieve what the hon. Members for Christchurch and for Spelthorne seek. I tempt fate and ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw the amendment and, perhaps, come back with something better at another stage if he wants to achieve his aim.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene, and for what he said about not accepting this wording, but something like it. Can he and I use that offer to get together and try to come up with a draft amendment, which we will table on Report, to meet the real concern that some local authorities might use the permit scheme as a revenue-raising measure? It is always difficult for the Opposition to come up with ideal wording, because the Government can say, ''That is not quite what we had in mind.'' Ideally, the Government would table an amendment on Report, or we could table one with assistance from the Government knowing that it reflected exactly the wording that they wanted.

Tony McNulty: No, that is far from it. I was not unhappy with subsection (5). All I was doing was exhorting both hon. Gentlemen to go away and try again, because this is not a successful attempt to achieve what they wanted. I am sorry to disappoint, them, but in that churlish spirit may I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press amendment No. 169?

Christopher Chope: No. We might as well put amendment No. 169 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 169, in 
page 16, line 33, at end insert 
 'but any fee set under this subsection shall represent the administrative cost of running the scheme and any fee above that amount shall be repaid.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in
page 16, line 35, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 189, in
page 16, line 38, at end insert 'that shall apply nationally.'.

Christopher Chope: Amendment No. 189 is about the need for a national permit scheme, which does not mean that everyone buys into it, but means that there should be some basic national parameters. This probing amendment is intended to find out what the Government think about the administrative nightmare that there would be if there were multiple schemes with different permit variations for operators working in different areas and boroughs in cities. Operators might be subject to penalties for inadvertent failures to apply. Will the Minister assure us that there will be standard core elements in any permit scheme—for example, relating to the period within which people have to apply and within which the permit must be dealt with, and the money that has to be paid to obtain the permit? Will he also assure us that the administrative burden and systems for utilities and large organisations, which operate throughout many parts of the country and work with many local authorities, will not be too complicated for what they have to do? It is true that there is an issue about the difference between urban and rural areas. That is surely one reason why we should have permit schemes only in areas that need them rather than different schemes in different areas. This is a plea for a Government response to the argument that we should have one national scheme rather than lots of individual, localised schemes.

Tony McNulty: I accept that there is a balance to be struck. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are differences between urban and rural areas, and we are pursuing the matter in the working group, which consists of representatives of local government, the utilities and others. The greater the standardisation that the group can achieve, the better, but I would like, in the first instance, to leave the matter to those who will operate permit schemes and those who will be on the wrong end of such schemes.

Brian White: A number of the small, innovative companies that are coming into the market may not be aware of the working group, but they may need to dig up roads and so on. Will the Minister ensure that where such companies come on line, they are brought into the consultation process?

Tony McNulty: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that they will be part of the working group, but I can assure
 him that we want the broadest possible consultation with those who may be involved in street works or permit schemes. Part of the reason for our success in bringing people on board through the working group is that many people in the field know those innovative companies and can bring them on board. Clearly, however, consultation with those most directly involved will need to be as extensive as possible.

Christopher Chope: I hear what the Minister says, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Crown application

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in
page 17, line 7, leave out subsection (2). 
Crown immunity is a matter of some fascination to me, and we could debate it at great length, but another occasion would probably be more appropriate. I realise that it is a sensitive issue, and that all sorts of provisions in Standing Orders and ''Erskine May'' relate to discussing the Crown. That is why I did not table an amendment to subsection (1), and I am sure that Her Majesty will be pleased no end to note that she is entirely free to pop out of Buckingham Palace to dig up the Mall with a pick and shovel. 
 Subsection (2), however, raises a substantial question, and I suspect that the answer will be highly technical or, indeed, lost in the mists of time and Crown immunity. Subsection (1) says: 
''This Part and any provisions made under it bind the Crown''.
 It seems strange, therefore, that subsection (2) should say: 
''Nothing in subsection (1) is to be construed as authorising the bringing of proceedings for a criminal offence against a person acting on behalf of the Crown.''
 We have debated criminal sanctions and criminality in relation to statutory undertakers and others who dig up roads, but we are now being told that someone who does so on behalf of the Crown cannot be considered to have committed a criminal offence, even though the provisions apply to the Crown. We are discussing not the Queen herself, because she is specifically and personally exempted, but Crown employees. If the provisions apply to them, why can they not be treated in the same way as every other citizen of this country? If they committed an offence, they would be as much of a criminal as you or I would be in those circumstances, Miss Begg.

Tony McNulty: This is a fascinating debate. I missed it when we debated the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, because although the issue of Crown immunity emerged in the end, that was after my departure as a Minister for planning. I will not take revenge for that and have the debate now, although perhaps it needs to be had at some stage. What is in the Bill reflects section 167(5) of the New Roads and
 Street Works Act 1991. For consistency, we wanted clause 37(2) to be identical to that. I will not go into the whole story of why the Bill should reflect the 1991 Act, save to say that, until the debate about Crown immunity and Crown employee immunity has been had in far wider forums than the Committee of the Traffic Management Bill—I will happily participate in that debate—it is appropriate that the Crown definitions in the 1991 Act carry on in the Bill. I will resist the urge to go into the Crown immunity debate at this time on this measure.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister. I expected that reply: it is the only sensible one to give, because the issue is much wider than that raised by the Bill. That said, I am glad that I had an opportunity to flag it up. I should make it clear that, when I raise these matters, I am expressing a personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of my party.

Gillian Merron: Oh!

David Wilshire: I say that only in case I am accused at some stage of producing a party policy on something that I think requires a general debate in which all of us, irrespective of the party to which we belong, could usefully participate. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Interpretation of Part 3

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in
page 18, line 4, leave out 
 'annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either' 
 and insert 
 'an affirmative resolution of each.'.
 Although this may be the last amendment to be considered this afternoon and under this part of the Bill, it is important, and I give my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne all the credit for raising the point. He identified the fact that, under this part, there will be a power to create new criminal offences that will never be required to be subject to a debate in relation to an affirmative resolution in this House and the other place. 
 The Minister conceded that, although some offences will be replicas of what is already on the statute book, there will be some new ones. That is bad enough, but if we look at the regulatory impact assessment, we see that the Government themselves recognise that at the moment it is by no means certain that the benefits of that will outweigh the costs. They have promised that a fuller RIA will be produced when the regulations are prepared. At that stage, following consultation with highway authorities and utility companies about the range of options available and the risks associated with those options, the Government will offer more detailed information about the anticipated impact of their proposals and, in particular, about the balance of costs and benefits. 
 Parliament still has a big job to do to scrutinise the outcome of that and, when the further RIA is 
 produced, to say whether it agrees that the benefits outweigh the costs to such an extent that the regulations should be passed. That is why it is important that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This measure deals not only with the liberty of the subject, given the new criminal offences; significant sums of money may be involved for individual businesses, and there is the potential for an extremely adverse effect on the British economy. Surely those issues are important enough to be debated in the context of a statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution, rather than as currently proposed.

Tony McNulty: I am tempted to be flippant and say, ''You say potayto, I say po-ta-to,'' when it comes to the negative and affirmative procedures. The hon. Gentleman would have a point if the regulations had been drawn up in a little room under a cupboard at the Department for Transport that no one knew of until people came blinking into the sunlight once they were done and dumped them in the Vote Office. If someone observed the regulations on an Order Paper they might pray against them and notice that they were fairly substantial.
 The regulations will arrive in the following context, however. We have established a working party to consider their formal content and the accompanying guidance document on a permanent scheme. We will be consulting widely on both documents with local authorities, utilities and other organisations that might be affected by, or have sufficient interest in, the new arrangements. Following consultation, we will revise the documents as necessary before they are laid before Parliament under the negative procedure, against which anyone can pray so that we might have the debate that the hon. Gentleman wants. I would hope 
 that after all that consultation there will be nothing but acclaim for the negative order, and that the authorities, the utilities and everyone else will simply be able to get on with their business. 
 If the regulations had dropped from the sky or had come from the DFT with no consultation or wider input, I might have had some sympathy and have gone for an affirmative resolution, but potayto, po-ta-to, tomayto, to-ma-to—I say negative, you say positive. I hope that with the indulgence of my colleagues it will be negatived. I want a proper consultation process to ensure that the end product is all the richer. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, allow the clause to stand part of the Bill and go home.

Christopher Chope: I think that I will test the affirmatives and the negatives.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to six o'clock till Tuesday 3 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.